Lynda di Armani had lived in Chilliwack, British Columbia, for more than 16 years. She worked as an educational assistant supporting students with special needs from 2007 to 2017.
On June 13, 2023, Ms. di Armani attended a public meeting of the Chilliwack Board of School Trustees to raise concerns about what she believed was a conflict of interest involving a school trustee. The trustee had promoted Pride events in local schools while also serving as the marketing director for a local Pride society. The trustee had also introduced a motion asking the Board to support Pride Month and raise the Pride flag at school campuses.
As Ms. di Armani spoke, Board Chair Willow Reichelt and Vice-Chair Carin Bondar repeatedly interrupted her, characterizing her comments as “discriminatory” and stating that “[t]here is no conflict of interest when you’re talking about basic human rights.”
After interrupting her four times, the Chair invited Ms. di Armani to continue speaking about her own views regarding Pride symbols in public schools. Moments later, however, the Chair abruptly ended her presentation, saying, “You can sit down now please.”
The meeting recording then fell silent for approximately 24 seconds. Either the Board muted all microphones during the meeting or the audio was removed afterward.
A constitutional challenge to government censorship
On October 6, 2023, lawyers funded by the Justice Centre helped Ms. di Armani file a constitutional challenge against the Chilliwack Board of School Trustees.
The petition argued that the Board violated Ms. di Armani’s freedom of expression, protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by repeatedly interrupting her and ultimately silencing her because of the content of her remarks.
The challenge also addressed the Board’s policy prohibiting members of the public from making their own recordings of public meetings. Before entering the June 13 meeting, Ms. di Armani had been required to sign an undertaking promising not to record the proceedings herself. Because the Board later muted or removed portions of the official recording, she argued that the Board also interfered with the public’s ability to hear and assess differing viewpoints expressed at elected public meetings.
Although the Board’s bylaws authorized the Chair to interrupt speakers who failed to comply with procedural rules, Ms. di Armani argued that those powers did not permit officials to silence speakers simply because they disagreed with what was being said.
She asked the Court to declare that the Board violated her Charter rights, to strike down the recording prohibition, and to prevent similar censorship in future public meetings.
“Elected officials exercising government power must respect Canadians’ Charter freedoms,” states Marty Moore, counsel for Ms. di Armani. “The Chilliwack School Board’s actions in this case show complete disregard for the freedom of expression, not only of my client, but also of the listening public, who have a right to hear the views of others at Board meetings. Unfortunately, this kind of censorship is a regular occurrence at Chilliwack School Board meetings. We are seeking Court orders to put an end to these violations of Charter rights and freedoms.”
The Board delayed the hearing
As the litigation progressed, lawyers for Ms. di Armani filed amended pleadings and additional affidavit evidence.
Among other things, Ms. di Armani noted that although members of the public were no longer required to sign undertakings promising not to record meetings, signs continued to prohibit personal recordings.
The hearing had originally been scheduled for late 2024. However, while preparing for trial, Ms. di Armani’s lawyers were informed that, at the School Board’s request, the hearing had been postponed until 2025.
Court acknowledged the Board acted wrongly but dismissed the petition
Following the March 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Ms. di Armani’s petition on October 31, 2025.
The Court concluded that it was unnecessary to determine whether the Chair’s decision to interrupt and silence Ms. di Armani violated the Charter, because the Board had subsequently acknowledged that ending her presentation had been wrong.
As the Court stated: “While the Chair’s letter to the petitioner may not state Ms. Di Armani’s right to free expression was unreasonably curtailed, there is no other logical way in which her decision can be read. In reconsidering their position, the Board clearly found the original decision to terminate Ms. Di Armani’s participation was wrong, and that the petitioner should be permitted to voice her comments or questions.”
The Court also upheld the Board’s prohibition on public recording at the June 2023 meeting, concluding that it was justified because of specific safety concerns, including a reported death threat. It further found that the petition did not properly challenge the Board’s later, ongoing restrictions on recording public meetings.
Case concluded
After carefully reviewing the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision, lawyers funded by the Justice Centre decided not to appeal.
The case is now closed.
